RugbyRebels

Already played for Wales hasn't he?

Underhill is an interesting one. Perhaps still doesn't seem "seveny" enough for some, certainly not with the Currys around, after a decade of wanting another Neil Back, but looks like he may have the toughness/physicality Jones is after whilst having an actual rugby brain.

If we're committed to the Haskell role at openside that we've seen so far, then we can't get him back in the 7 shirt quick enough.

oldbackrow wrote:Very impressed by both Mercer and Underhill's work rate and skill levels. Had been a little underwhelmed by underhill after all the hype, but he was really putting himself about. Also very impressed by Dai Youngs lad, is he EQ?!

Capped by Wales.......I think.

Underhill is great in the contact area - he's a brute in the tackle but not a lot else yet. Hes a unit and he's very committed, so if he applies that to the breakdown then he'll be an excellent player. Robshaw+ I suppose.

Mercer is quite different. He has a higher ceiling in my opinion. Showed he can really put in a shift on the eeekend which is great. Potentially at 6 and especially 8. Could be the player we hoped Tom Croft would be?

TheNomad wrote:Underhill is great in the contact area - he's a brute in the tackle but not a lot else yet. Hes a unit and he's very committed, so if he applies that to the breakdown then he'll be an excellent player. Robshaw+ I suppose.

Mercer is quite different. He has a higher ceiling in my opinion. Showed he can really put in a shift on the eeekend which is great. Potentially at 6 and especially 8. Could be the player we hoped Tom Croft would be?

Tom Croft did ok, really.

Banquo wrote:

TheNomad wrote:Underhill is great in the contact area - he's a brute in the tackle but not a lot else yet. Hes a unit and he's very committed, so if he applies that to the breakdown then he'll be an excellent player. Robshaw+ I suppose.

Mercer is quite different. He has a higher ceiling in my opinion. Showed he can really put in a shift on the eeekend which is great. Potentially at 6 and especially 8. Could be the player we hoped Tom Croft would be?

Tom Croft did ok, really.

shhh. He was a spaghetti armed lightweight who ignored team orders and spent too much time on the wing.

Don't most of the question marks over Mercer's willingness to put in a shift come from the U20 WC, where, due to injuries, he had to play every game? I reckon, given those circumstances, he showed a degree of maturity judging how much he could do and applying his effort, rather than just chucking himself in gung-ho.

16th man wrote:

Banquo wrote:

TheNomad wrote:Underhill is great in the contact area - he's a brute in the tackle but not a lot else yet. Hes a unit and he's very committed, so if he applies that to the breakdown then he'll be an excellent player. Robshaw+ I suppose.

Mercer is quite different. He has a higher ceiling in my opinion. Showed he can really put in a shift on the eeekend which is great. Potentially at 6 and especially 8. Could be the player we hoped Tom Croft would be?

Tom Croft did ok, really.

shhh. He was a spaghetti armed lightweight who ignored team orders and spent too much time on the wing.

Don't most of the question marks over Mercer's willingness to put in a shift come from the U20 WC, where, due to injuries, he had to play every game? I reckon, given those circumstances, he showed a degree of maturity judging how much he could do and applying his effort, rather than just chucking himself in gung-ho.

There's question marks over Mercer's willingness to put in a shift?! I'd always thought him a workhorse. And the U20s RWC was ridiculous - he was stupidly overplayed, even with the injuries and just had nothing left in the tank come the end.

Puja

Puja wrote:

16th man wrote:

Banquo wrote: Tom Croft did ok, really.

shhh. He was a spaghetti armed lightweight who ignored team orders and spent too much time on the wing.

Don't most of the question marks over Mercer's willingness to put in a shift come from the U20 WC, where, due to injuries, he had to play every game? I reckon, given those circumstances, he showed a degree of maturity judging how much he could do and applying his effort, rather than just chucking himself in gung-ho.

There's question marks over Mercer's willingness to put in a shift?! I'd always thought him a workhorse. And the U20s RWC was ridiculous - he was stupidly overplayed, even with the injuries and just had nothing left in the tank come the end.

Puja

I thought the question marks were over his abrasiveness against physical teams, particularly in contact?

It's were the Curry's have the edge, perhaps.

I think he's a fantastic be player btw

16th man wrote:

Banquo wrote:

TheNomad wrote:Underhill is great in the contact area - he's a brute in the tackle but not a lot else yet. Hes a unit and he's very committed, so if he applies that to the breakdown then he'll be an excellent player. Robshaw+ I suppose.

Mercer is quite different. He has a higher ceiling in my opinion. Showed he can really put in a shift on the eeekend which is great. Potentially at 6 and especially 8. Could be the player we hoped Tom Croft would be?

Tom Croft did ok, really.

shhh. He was a spaghetti armed lightweight who ignored team orders and spent too much time on the wing.

I believe luxury giraffe is the go to phrase.

The Curry's strike me as very physical for 18 year olds, but not especially physical by AP standards, and certainly not by intentional standards. We can of course hope that they grow into it, and their current level is amazing for their age, but I don't think they're international ready.

The Curry's aren't ready for test rugby. But there's perhaps a fair gamble to assume they will be in 2019 and we can't wait until then or it's too late

Digby wrote:The Curry's aren't ready for test rugby. But there's perhaps a fair gamble to assume they will be in 2019 and we can't wait until then or it's too late

This, with an additional factor that otherwise Haskell is the best we've got, we won't learn anything new by continuing other him, and (IMO) he's just starting to show his age now... 2 years out.

We've the got Underhill, who's also not ready just yet, is another 6.5, and is equally unproven at international level.

And no-one else really...

I do worry about the work load being expected of two very young players, and just to win a WC doesn't seem like a great reason to bring them in too early. It's such an attritional role, and an increasingly attritional one it seems

Digby wrote:I do worry about the work load being expected of two very young players, and just to win a WC doesn't seem like a great reason to bring them in too early. It's such an attritional role, and an increasingly attritional one it seems

But we've got a spare if we break one...

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I do worry about the work load being expected of two very young players, and just to win a WC doesn't seem like a great reason to bring them in too early. It's such an attritional role, and an increasingly attritional one it seems

But we've got a spare if we break one...

Puja

Always good to know we're meeting the categorical imperative

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I do worry about the work load being expected of two very young players, and just to win a WC doesn't seem like a great reason to bring them in too early. It's such an attritional role, and an increasingly attritional one it seems

But we've got a spare if we break one...

Puja

Always good to know we're meeting the categorical imperative

Hey!

Or possibly thank you. I'm not sure.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:The Curry's aren't ready for test rugby. But there's perhaps a fair gamble to assume they will be in 2019 and we can't wait until then or it's too late

This, with an additional factor that otherwise Haskell is the best we've got, we won't learn anything new by continuing other him, and (IMO) he's just starting to show his age now... 2 years out.

We've the got Underhill, who's also not ready just yet, is another 6.5, and is equally unproven at international level.

And no-one else really...

Pretty much. However, I do think the Currys and Underhill will turn out to be top players. Investing in them this early is a gamble for sure, but I think it is a risk worth taking.

This is partially because our alternatives are declining (i.e. Haskell) but chiefly because the younger guys are genuinely putting in performances that warrant attention.

The below is from a piece in today's Times. It might explain Sinckler's omission from the squad:

'From what I gather, when he returned from the Lions tour, he believed a little too much all the publicity – that actually he had now kind of made it, that he was the coming man, that he was soon to be promoted up the England ranks.'

His ban will not have helped matters. I think we can safely say that, were it the case, he's failed the test Jones set him.

Mellsblue wrote:The below is from a piece in today's Times. It might explain Sinckler's omission from the squad:

'From what I gather, when he returned from the Lions tour, he believed a little too much all the publicity – that actually he had now kind of made it, that he was the coming man, that he was soon to be promoted up the England ranks.'

His ban will not have helped matters. I think we can safely say that, were it the case, he's failed the test Jones set him.

Where's the spoiler alert? How am I now supposed to enjoy the rugby news with a coffee around 10am?

Edit - In the event it would seem it was in the Times online, at least I didn't notice a story on Sinckler in the hard copy

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:The below is from a piece in today's Times. It might explain Sinckler's omission from the squad:

'From what I gather, when he returned from the Lions tour, he believed a little too much all the publicity – that actually he had now kind of made it, that he was the coming man, that he was soon to be promoted up the England ranks.'

His ban will not have helped matters. I think we can safely say that, were it the case, he's failed the test Jones set him.

Where's the spoiler alert? How am I now supposed to enjoy the rugby news with a coffee around 10am?

Edit - In the event it would seem it was in the Times online, at least I didn't notice a story on Sinckler in the hard copy

You are welcome.

Welcome indeed, pfft.

I read the Torygraph earlier, well I read the rugby bits in the sport section, and other than a big spread telling us Sale are on the up as they beat LI and Glaws there was also an article from Austin that essentially stipulates Eddie must pick Slade at 13. The article on Sale simply ignored the Sarries result in the Sale games so far, or I was so bored I missed such comment, which Austin doesn't do when it comes to the balance Slade brings in power and pace, rather Austin glosses over that part and says Slade is faster than one might think, fast enough to beat the first defender, and that he's a tough bugger and stronger than one might think. Austin also notes having Slade at 13 would change the demands on the back row and back three, but doesn't say what he'd do about that.

This is what I love about rugby instead of football.

Pundits spout crap in both sports, but football fans lap it up, while rugby fans can see the flaws immediately

I may read the Guardian, but god, is their rugby coverage absolutely terrible. I'm not paying for the Torygraph so I can read Charlie Morgan's article's only. The Times is owned by Murdoch, and MailOnline is a disaster zone.

What's the Indie's rugby coverage like?

Digby wrote:Welcome indeed, pfft.

I read the Torygraph earlier, well I read the rugby bits in the sport section, and other than a big spread telling us Sale are on the up as they beat LI and Glaws there was also an article from Austin that essentially stipulates Eddie must pick Slade at 13. The article on Sale simply ignored the Sarries result in the Sale games so far, or I was so bored I missed such comment, which Austin doesn't do when it comes to the balance Slade brings in power and pace, rather Austin glosses over that part and says Slade is faster than one might think, fast enough to beat the first defender, and that he's a tough bugger and stronger than one might think. Austin also notes having Slade at 13 would change the demands on the back row and back three, but doesn't say what he'd do about that.

This is on the back of Slade taking into contact a couple of times last weekend I guess; new shiny toy.

Also on the back of Salde having broken his leg and worked his way back to form. Indeed being the form English player according to one person with a rug sewn onto his head.

Digby wrote:Also on the back of Salde having broken his leg and worked his way back to form. Indeed being the form English player according to one person with a rug sewn onto his head.

odd

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Also on the back of Salde having broken his leg and worked his way back to form. Indeed being the form English player according to one person with a rug sewn onto his head.

odd

The view on Slade, or his living in denial that he's bald?